Current election processes using paper cards and/or ballots have been subject of controversy because of questions concerning their accuracy, potential for voter confusion, and potential for fraud. This is true for machine voting as well as for hand-marked ballots or punch card (“chad” or “chip” removal type) ballots, whether counted by optical scanning or mechanical scanning, which introduce the additional difficulty of determining what is and is not a voted ballot due to incomplete or partial marking of a box or spot or due to the partial or incomplete punching out of a chad or chip. The accuracy and integrity of the voting process and of the counting of ballots is of great concern in any election. As is perhaps most convincingly evidenced by the events surrounding the United States Presidential Election for the year 2000, and particularly in the State of Florida, the lack or perceived lack of accuracy and integrity can cause fear, doubt, distrust and divisiveness and can undermine confidence in government and its institutions.
While some of the foregoing is alleviated by conventional mechanical and more recently by computer-based electronic voting machines utilizing proven and applicable means of data entry such as special keyboards or touch-screens that have been constructed for conventional electronic voting machines, these do not allow or provide any way for personal checking of votes cast to increase the voter's confidence. While the use of computers for vote tabulation and record keeping for each voting machine and/or election can be done with almost zero error, voter confidence in the process is still a subject to be considered. A particular concern relates to the nature of records stored in electronic and magnetic form which are intangible and can be changed without leaving any evidence thereof.
In addition to potential machine and human error, present election and ballot systems do not provide any traceable record for the election choices of individual voters. While the secrecy of each personal ballot is important for various reasons and must be maintained, a voting system and method that would provide confirmation of his or her voting choice(s) to each individual voter and that would further allow the individual voter to compare what has been tallied during the election as his vote to such confirmation would be extremely useful and increase confidence in the integrity and accuracy of the outcome of the voting.
The following cannot be easily addressed to eliminate potential human error and the possibilities for mischief or tampering with conventional voting systems and methods:                1. Voter registration verification when the voter shows up at the polls to vote may be very strict or may be loose, without any uniform or satisfactory standard. Conventional systems simply lack any simple means to verify registration electronically and instantly before the voter is allowed to vote. This lack of certainty is magnified in the case of “provisional” ballots, as well as in the case of “domestic absentee” and “overseas absentee” ballots, particularly when such ballots are challenged.        2. The voter does not have any record of his voting selections. There is currently no sure way to allow the voter to verify and have confidence that the vote he/she cast has indeed been tallied properly.        3. If an electronic voting booth is used, there is no feasible way to challenge or recount the voting records since the votes are accumulated electronically in electronic memories and, if stored as individual records, are stored in a random order to preserve voter anonymity. Voting machines, and particularly electronic voting machines wherein an intangible electronic or magnetic record may be altered (either intentionally or accidentally) without any telltale evidence thereof, must be totally devoid of possible tampering or other problem in order that the confidence of the voting public and of each individual voter can be preserved.        
In view of the recent problems and issues in properly and accurately counting votes in the U.S. Presidential election, voters are likely asking questions such as:                How do you know that your paper, electronic, or mechanical ballot or vote was actually counted? And that it was counted correctly?        Are you comfortable that multiple voting (i.e. the old saying, “Vote early! Vote often!”) has really been eliminated?        Are you sure that your absentee ballot or overseas absentee ballot was counted? And that it was counted correctly?        Are you sure that provisional ballots are properly verified and qualified, and then are counted correctly?        Can you be sure that the vote count in extremely close election, e.g., an election where the difference is a mere hundreds of votes out of many millions of votes cast or one or two votes out of several thousands of votes cast, is really correct and legitimate?        
It would be desirable to have a voting apparatus, system and method that could substantially eliminate doubts and fears, whether real or imagined, concerning the accuracy and integrity of the voting apparatus, system and method. People who are among those that do not or cannot trust a voting machine or system completely, whether it utilize an electronic or mechanical voting machine, or marked or punched paper ballots, would be more likely to trust the voting system if it was “transparent,” i.e. if the voting system provided a way for each individual vote to be independently verified. Of course, transparency should be provided without compromising the secrecy of any individual vote or the confidentiality of the voting booth.
Accordingly, a voting apparatus, system and method that avoids at least some of the problems associated with conventional voting apparatus, systems and methods is needed.
To this end, the voting apparatus of the present invention comprises a processor for processing voting information and providing a voting session identifier, and a voter interface for displaying voting information and receiving voting selections made by a voter and coupling same to the processor. The processor provides a voting record including the voting selections and a memory is coupled to the processor for storing the voting record and the voting session identifier. The apparatus further comprises one or more of: a means for storing a voting indicia and the voting session identifier in a tangible medium separate from the memory, the processor requiring selection of at least one of the possible voting selections before proceeding from a present contest to a next contest and/or to ending a voting session, and the processor being responsive to a representation corresponding to one or more of a plurality of voting jurisdictions for selecting from a database voting ballots for the one or more of the plurality of voting jurisdictions corresponding thereto.
In the Drawing, where an element or feature is shown in more than one drawing figure, the same alphanumeric designation may be used to designate such element or feature in each figure, and where a closely related or modified element is shown in a figure, the same alphanumerical designation primed may be used to designate the modified element or feature. It is noted that, according to common practice, the various features of the drawing are not to scale, and the dimensions of the various features are arbitrarily expanded or reduced for clarity.